Section
VI: Justinian to Heraclius, 527-641

Inscriptions in this section

VI.1 The
chronological presentation of the late Roman material from Aphrodisias becomes
steadily more imprecise over this period. This is partly because of the
increasing use of metrical inscriptions, which convey very little factual
information, and partly because of the increased activity of private citizens,
whose inscriptions are less easy to date than those naming government
officials. Of the inscriptions presented in the preceding section, 61 may well be dated to the reign of
Maurice and some or all of 62 ff. may date from after the
accession of Justinian in 527 ; and of the inscriptions presented in this
section, only text 91 can be
certainly dated, to some time after 539: see VI.42.
Two funerary inscriptions (157 and 164) are specifically dated under
Justinian, and some of the other private and ecclesiastical inscriptions
presented below may well date from the sixth or seventh centuries; but not
enough inscriptions can be definitely dated to provide a solid framework for
discussing the history of Aphrodisias during this crucial period of transition.
The uncertainty over dating makes it difficult to be sure even about the
reduction in the number of inscriptions; but there are no public, secular
inscriptions from the city which it appears possible to date later than 91, if that is correctly dated to the
seventh century.

VI.2The
evidence which has been presented above from the later fifth and early sixth
century, even though it cannot all be dated with precision, nevertheless
combines to give a general picture of a prosperous community, where both civic
officials and private individuals were spending money on public amenities. The
evidence from other sources suggests that this prosperity extended well into
the reign of Justinian. In his administrative reforms, Justinian in 535
abolished the vicariate of Asiana (Nov. 8;
see discussion at V.33). He followed this up in
536 by creating an office of quaestor
exercitus, with authority over
the two frontier provinces of Moesia Secunda and Scythia, as well as the
provinces of the Islands, Caria and Cyprus (Nov. 51). This arrangement, which was not particularly convenient for the
citizens of these provinces (see the modifications to Nov. 51, dated 537), was specifically intended, as Lydus tells us,
to ensure that the frontier forces could be directly supplied from provinces
which were both easily accessible by sea and particularly prosperous: ἀφορίσας αὐτῷ (the quaestor
exercitus) ἐπαρχίας
τρεῖς τὰς πασῶν ἐγγὺς εὐπορωτάτας (De Mag. 2. 29). The implication is that Caria was
remarkably prosperous at this period, and furthermore was considered a maritime
province; and this may have been reflected in a shift in importance at about
this time from the cities of the interior, such as Aphrodisias, to those of the
coast. Already in the reign of Anastasius the governor of Caria had been
repairing roads in the area of Halicarnassus (see List of Governors). At some time in this period Vitianus,
governor of Caria, repaired a dyke at Miletus (see List of Governors); and the only definitely identified
governor of Caria who can be dated to the reign of Justinian is Nonnus, attested at Miletus (List of Governors). Such a
shift in emphasis foreshadows the situation in the Byzantine period (see
further discussion at VI.55).

VI.3During
the reign of Justinian, however, there is evidence to show that not only Caria
but also Aphrodisias itself was remarkably flourishing. In 529 Justinian issued
a law ordering that once interest payments on a debt had reached twice the
value of the original sum, the debt was to be considered cancelled (CJ 4. 32. 27). Justinian's Novel 160 deals with the effects of this
law; it is undated, but was probably issued not more than a year or two later.
It was written in response to an appeal from the property owners of
Aphrodisias, represented by the pater
civitatis, Aristocrates — Ἀριστοκράτης ὁ ἐλλογιμώτατος πατὴρ
τῆς Ἀφροδισιέων πόλεως καὶ οἱ κατ' αὐτὴν κεκτημένοι. Aristocrates' rank of ἐλλογιμώτατος suggests that he was a scholasticus, as were the other patres, Fl. Ampelius and Fl. Photius
(see List of Officials). Aristocrates had
written to explain that the city owned a considerable sum of money from gifts
or bequests (πρεσβεῖα), which had been lent out to
influential citizens, who made a regular annual payment to the city for the use
of the money: χρυσίον συχνὸν ἠθροῖσθαι τῇ πόλει ἐκ
πρεσβείων καταλελειμμένων παρά τινων τῇ Αφροδισιέων πόλει, καὶ ὅπως ἂν μὴ τοῦτο
ἐξαπόλοιτο, τινὰς τῶν ἐν δυνάμει τῆς πόλεως νείμασθαι τὸ χρυσίον τοῦτο ἐφ' ᾧ τε ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ τῇ πόλει
συντελεῖν ἔτους ἑκάστου . . . ὃ προσῆκόν ἐστι φέρεσθαι τῇ πόλει. The holders of this
money were now claiming that this arrangement constituted a loan, and that
under the new legislation, once they had paid out twice its value to the city,
the principal became their own. Justinian ruled that this sort of arrangement
was not an ordinary loan, and did not come under the new law. Aphrodisias'
substantial endowments may indeed have been unusual, since the new law included
no provision for such arrangements, which had been commonplace in the Roman
period. 1What is clear is that in the early
530s Aphrodisias had a significant private income from gifts and bequests,
sufficient to maintain important public services; Aristocrates stated that the
loss of this money was preventing the heating of the public baths, and other
public works: ἀδικεῖσθαι
μὲν τὰς ἐκπυρώσεις τῶν δημοσίων βαλανείων τὰς ἐντεῦθεν γινομένας,
ἐλαττοῦσθαι δὲ τὰ ἔργα τὰ δημόσια. This accords well with the evidence of the
inscriptions presented above, which show individual citizens undertaking a
variety of public works for the city, and in one case making a gift of money
for the maintenance of the baths (74);
it also helps to explain the frequent attestation of patres civitatis at Aphrodisias, acting with public money to
restore and embellish monuments (38, 42, 43, 44, 61, 85, 86, 87) even to
the extent of erecting statues (62)
or public gameboards (68, 69, 238).

VI.4This
evidence for the prosperity of the city, and the persistence into the sixth
century of old-fashioned munificence, makes it even harder to explain why the
sixth century apparently saw the last public secular inscriptions on the site,
and the end of civic life in its traditional form. This is discussed further
below; but underlying problems may be indicated by the suggestion in
Aristocrates' letter to Justinian that some at least of the influential
citizens — οἱ ἐν
δυνάμει — were already
prepared to further their own interests in direct conflict with those of the
city.

VI.5 It is not possible to restore with absolute certainty the name of the
emperor honoured in text 81. His cognomen ended in -nus; and the positioning of the letters suggests that l. 5
probably contained some 12 letters. This would rule out Constantine (too long),
Marcian or Justin (too short); Julian (preceded by Cl.) would fill the space,
but his name has been erased elsewhere at Aphrodisias (19, 20); Valentinian is probably also too long; Justinian's name
fits the space perfectly. The difficulties of dating scripts at this period are
yet again shown here, where the script seems equally appropriate to the fourth
or the sixth century. The elegant appearance of the text might suggest an
earlier rather than a later date, and there is certainly a great contrast
between this text and some others which we have dated to the later fifth or
early sixth century (e.g. 62 and 65 from the Theatre area, both
honouring officials). But the contrast is no greater than that between 85 and 86 and 87, all of which honour the same man,
probably in the first half of the sixth century (see below). The script gives
an indication of date only in l. 1: the lunate epsilon and sigma contrast
oddly with the square letters below, and beta,
with its two distinctly separate bowls, seems to be a late development: its
earliest appearance at Aphrodisias is probably in 62, 73, 82 and 83, which
have all been dated to the later fifth or sixth centuries. I therefore suggest that an attribution to
Justinian, while not beyond doubt, is most probable. The epithets are too
standard to be significant: for Justinian described as ὁ εὐσεβέστατος καὶ καλλίνικος ἡμῶν
βασιλεύς see IGLS 1809.

VI.6 Inscriptions
82 and the 19 texts presented as 83 honour a man called Albinus; 82 was inscribed apparently on the base
of a statue, and no 83 comprises a
group of acclamations in his honour. Despite, however, having found so many,
and such remarkable, inscriptions, we cannot determine a great deal about him.
His name is not otherwise found at Aphrodisias, and is more usual in the Latin
west than in the Greek east (thus all the Albini in PLRE are from the west). If the inscrutable ΠΕΡΔΕ in 83.vi
and x is in fact the vocative of
another name, Perdus, it is not otherwise attested as such. Albinus is clearly
a citizen of Aphrodisias, since he is described as φιλόπατρις, lover
of his country (82, 83. vii, xvii and xix; for the epithet, see further VI.16)
he apparently came from a family of local benefactors, ἐκ προγόνων φιλόπατρις (83.xvii
— compare e.g. φιλόπατριν
διὰ προγόνων, in an inscription of the first or early second century at
Aphrodisias, Reinach 39; cf. also MAMA 8, 484). He is honoured in 82 for his works (for ἀμειβομένη see Index), and
for benefactions of untold gold; this probably means direct cash gifts, as
in the case of Hermias (74), and as
cited in the Novel of Justinian
addressed to Aphrodisias (see VI.3). 83 is concerned with one particular
benefaction — Albinus' foundation, κτίσις of the western portico of the South Agora, on whose columns these texts are
inscribed (83. vi and xv); it is implied that he was also
responsible for other κτίσματα (83. viii and xix, cf. καὶ τούτου in 83. xv).

VI.7 These
references give us an interesting insight into the uses of the terms founder
and foundations, derivatives of κτίζω. 2 The portico to which 83. vi refers was originally built in
the imperial period. 3 It was clearly an important area in
the late Roman period; among others, the statues of Arcadius and Valentinian
stood in this portico (see above, 26
and 27). The southern portico of the
South Agora was apparently built in the late fifth or early sixth century; 66 describes Philip, son of Herodian,
as having paid for the work on of two intercolumniations, which suggests that
several donors were needed to pay for the building. The resultant work was not
impressive: the columns stand on a series of re-used and unmatched bases of
irregular height, creating a very untidy appearance. 4 By contrast, the restoration of the western portico seems to have been
paid for entirely by one man, Albinus, and the work is far more elegant: all
the column bases are identical, and the overall effect is entirely uniform.
Whether this is the result of Albinus' lavish expenditure, or whether the
western portico had simply required less repair, the inscriptions imply that at
this period donations were being made, not just by a few very rich men, but on
a varying scale of magnitudes; and the epithet κτίστης, founder, applied to Albinus, is not so much an
exaggerated claim for what was in fact restoration, as a recognition of his
particularly high standing in the scale of donors.

VI.8 It
seems economical to associate Albinus' work in the western portico of the South Agora with that of
Philip in the southern portico, which should probably be dated to the later
fifth or early sixth century (see V.42). Other
evidence, though slight, supports such a date for these texts. The epithet φιλόπατρις, while
common in the imperial period (see above), is otherwise found only among the
late Roman inscriptions in 86 and 87; and the unusual verb ληθαργέω and its derivatives are only found here in 83.xx, and again in 86 and 87. Those two texts honour Rhodopaeus, another benefactor of
Aphrodisias who, I believe, should be dated to the early or middle sixth
century (see VI.26). There are also slight
parallels in 83.viii and a striking
parallel in 83.xx to inscriptions
found at Beirut, honouring Marthanius, a military commander in the reign of
Justinian. 5 for the parallels see VI.17, VI.24). A sixth-century date would accord well
with the odder elements of the script, such as the cursive delta and mu.

VI.9Furthermore,
the use of Albinus' rank of λαμπρότατος/clarissimus (83. ix, xiii, xvi, xvii, xx) in 83. xiii, which appears to be a request for him to be made a
senator, implies that he is not yet a member of the senate; that he can hold
the rank of clarissimus without being
a member of the senate, suggests a date after the mid fifth century. 6 The presentation of this request
perhaps provides the real purpose of these acclamations, but their ostensible
function is to celebrate Albinus' work on the portico. It may be that the
fragmentary acclamations in 61
record acclamations made at a ceremony dedicating a new or restored building;
and I believe that that is the most likely source for the acclamations of
Albinus, which would have been made at the inauguration ceremony for the newly
restored portico. It is therefore of particular interest to find such a
ceremonial activity including a specific request. Since these acclamations were
normally expected to be reported to the imperial authorities, 7 the request for Albinus' promotion
would reach the appropriate quarters, supported by the praises in the
acclamations, underlining his suitability for the Senate. 8

VI.10These
inscriptions therefore reinforce the evidence for considerable generosity by
private donors at Aphrodisias in the later fifth and early sixth centuries
(illustrated here and in section V). They also suggest a political context for
such activity; not only does Albinus seem to have been one of the more lavish
donors, but the acclamation calling for the overthrow of his enemies (83. xi) hints at some kind of tension
between different groups in the city. Such tension may well have been between
prominent citizens vying for pre-eminence (it is perhaps implicit in the
existence of the supporters of Pytheas, above, 59), and may even have become sufficiently important to be
described as civil strife (64). A
competitive atmosphere would help to explain the surprising extent of secular
benefactions attested at Aphrodisias in this period.

VI.11Texts 83 and 84 also make an important contribution to our understanding of the
nature and the development of acclamations. 9 They conform closely to other series
of acclamations from all over the Greek east and even beyond, both in
individual phrases and in general structure. To begin with, their syllabic
structure is typical of such texts. Since the analysis by Paul Maas of acclamations
recorded in the Hippodrome at Constantinople under Justinian, it has been
recognized that late Roman acclamations followed a metrical structure, based on
the number of syllables in a phrase and their accentuation, rather than on
vowel-length. 10The structure provided a rhythmical
framework within which acclamations could be developed and improvised; and it
has been convincingly argued that this widespread familiarity with the use of
syllabic rhythm is a precursor of the development of Byzantine syllabic
verse-forms. 11

VI.12In
considering the structure of the acclamations for Albinus, I was greatly helped
by Professor Margaret Alexiou. Of the acclamations listed under 83, ii-v are standard formulae; i
is another standard formula, expanded to produce a ten-syllable line. Of the
remaining texts that can be analysed, vi, vii, x, xiii and xv form
twelve-syllable lines, and viii, xvi
and xix are composed of a
twelve-syllable line followed by a seven-syllable phrase — in each case, Albine with an epithet. Of the five
other texts, xi is composed of two
eight- and one ten-syllable groups; the surviving phrase of xiv is of eight syllables; xvii consists of two eight- and one
seven-syllable groups. xviii is
partially restored, to provide two seven-syllable groups; xx, which is the most complex, appears to break down into a phrase
of fourteen or fifteen syllables (depending on elision), one of twelve
syllables, and one of five. Of all these groups, half have a paroxytone ending.
The most common structure in these texts is, therefore, a grouping of twelve
syllables — most of which make reasonable dodecasyllabic lines — or of groups
of eight and seven syllables, which Maas showed to be the most common
arrangement in the acclamations recorded at Constantinople, and which can be
seen as underlying the later 'political verse' of fifteen syllables.

VI.13The
arrangement of these inscriptions also follows closely what we know of series
of acclamations elsewhere. Thus 83. i
— v are typical of the opening
acclamations of an assembly. Εἷς
θεός is an ancient acclamation found frequently on its own (as in 140) but also often at the beginning of
a series of acclamations; 12 for example, in the acclamations of
the anti-Nestorian crowd at Constantinople in 431; 13 at the church assembly at Edessa in
449; 14 at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, 15 and at the pro-Chalcedonian gathering
at Tyre in 518. 16 The use of this phrase as an
introductory formula indicates, as Mouterde pointed out in his review of
Peterson, that Peterson's interpretation of it as primarily apotropaic is not
sufficient. 17 In such a context it clearly asserts
the right belief of an assembly, just as the acclamations of the secular
authorities that follow assert its loyalty. The phrase used here, to or for
the whole world, is unparalleled, although it echoes some New Testament
language: here it perhaps stresses the adherence of this assembly to the
catholic, empire-wide faith of Chalcedon — an assertion which might be
necessary at Aphrodisias, with its history of monophysitism and schism (see V.25, and
below, VI.37).

VI.1483.ii — v are paralleled in secular and
ecclesiastical contexts. The assembly at Tyre acclaimed the emperor and
empress, the senate, and the eparchs, in that order; 18 similarly, the meeting at Edessa
acclaimed the hyparchs. 19 The eparchs/hyparchs are almost
certainly the praetorian and city prefects, as in the acclamations at Antioch
in 388; 20 they are perhaps acclaimed as
representing the imperial administration as a whole, including, implicitly, the
governor of Caria. Acclamations of cities are found elsewhere; 21 the simplest formula for acclaiming
one's city is that found in 84 (cf.
also [PPA 10], 186. ii).

VI.15The
remaining texts, with the possible exception of xiv, all acclaim Albinus, and the phrasing, as well as the ideas
expressed, becomes steadily more complex; this probably reflects the
practicalities of acclaiming, where simple and familiar phrases are used to
establish unison, before introducing less familiar expressions. Thus the first
acclamation of Albinus (vi) is the
most simple; and it is restated in similar terms in xv, offering an interruption to the less standard acclamations.
Both vi, xiii and xv use one of
the most standard of all acclamatory formulae, αὔξι. 22ΠΕΡΔΕ here and in x, if not a name (see VI.6 above), could be a transliteration: T. D. Barnes
has suggested Per te and C. P. Jones Perde in the sense of spend
extravagantly. 23 Such transliterations, as Jones points
out, are well attested among acclamations. 24 A. C. Dionisotti suggests an
abbreviated form of περιίδε in the sense look around. 25 R. W. Daniel proposed a derivation
from πέρδομαι but his literary parallels are not
entirely convincing. 26 Although I remain uncertain, it would
perhaps be easier to accommodate an epithet (or a name) than a verb in these
acclamations.

VI.1683.vii addresses Albinus as φιλόπατρις, as in 82 and 83. xvii and 83.xix, an
epithet otherwise used only of Rhodopaeus in the late Roman inscriptions of
Aphrodisias (86 and 87; see above, VI.8).
The term is common in the Roman period (see above) and is one which we know to
have been assigned by acclamation. 27Διαμένειν is another standard acclamatory term; 28 Jones rightly points out that the
translation must be remain, endure, to our benefit, rather than remain with
us (as I had suggested).

VI.17The
next text, 83. viii, returns to the
theme of Albinus' κτίσματα (see VI.7). Φιλοκτίστης is a
characteristic term of praise for late
Roman benefactors, used most notably of Justinian in a series of brick-stamps
found at Mesembria. 29 It occurs in an acclamatory formula on
a mosaic found near Sidon: Λεοντίου
φιλοκτίστου πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη. 30 The idea of a man's good works as an
eternal memorial is ancient, but ὑπόμνησις is not
a standard term; the word may have been chosen for its rhythm. For the phrase
as a whole, compare the fragmentary acclamation of Marthanius at Beirut, which
should perhaps be restored as: Μαρθανίου στρατηλάτου πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη τὰ σὰ κτίσματα αἰωνία ὑπόμνησις. 31

VI.1883.x is again difficult. ΠΕΡΔΕ has been discussed above. For ΙΔΕ, Professor M. Alexiou suggested a spelling of ἴδε, behold; alternatively, Jones suggests a
transliteration of ede, give: for the absolute use of the verb, he cites OLD , 32 and for its use in acclamations, the
remarkable mosaic from Smirat. 33 The latter explanation is very
attractive, but is difficult to accommodate within the phrase as a whole. R. W.
Daniels proposes reading ἠδἀ
ἔτι. 34

VI.1983.xi is composed of standard
acclamatory phrases. The reference to the whole city here and again in 83.xx is paralleled, for example, in
the acclamations from Edessa in 449: ὄλη ἡ πόλις τοῦτο βοᾷ; 35 this kind of assertion of the
unanimity of an acclaiming assembly is very common, and is particularly
relevant here in an acclamation rejecting Albinus' enemies (for the
implications of which see VI.10). 36 For the expression the city says,
Feissel compares the Apameans say in an acclamation from Apamea. 37 The next phrase, your enemies to the
river, is in a construction standard for acclamations, with a dative of
direction/recipient, and no verb; compare 83.xiii,
or, for example, ἄλλος
ἐπίσκοπος τῇ μητροπόλει. 38 The expression to the river has no
particular local relevance, but would appear to be an ancient abusive
acclamation. The most famous examples of such a phrase are known from Rome,
used of a series of unpopular
characters. 39 That the idea remained current is
suggested by the shouts of the crowd at Constantinople in 433 against the
Nestorians, Throw them into the Tigris and the Rhone — rivers presumably
chosen to express the whole extent of the Empire. 40 The last phrase in this text is again
standard: thus a virtually identical phrase was used by the church assembly at
Tyre in 518 — ὁ μέγας θεὸς τοῦτο παράσχεν, 41 and a similar one by a crowd at
Antioch in 484 — 'μέγας ὁ Θεός' καὶ 'Κύριε ἐλέησον, τὸ καλὸν καὶ το συμφέρον
παράσχου'. 42

VI.2083.xiii contains a specific request,
again in the standard construction with the dative described above: Albinus to
the Senate. For the implications of this request discussion at VI.9; cf. the observations of Jones, LRE, 523-4.

VI.2183.xiv is an adjuration against φθόνος, a word normally translated as envy,
but having something of the sense of 'the Evil Eye', a malign occult power
particularly likely to threaten success. 43 Adjurations against φθόνος are a commonplace in the late Roman period, and
are reported among acclamatory formulae — thus, at the Council of Chalcedon, ἀπείη φθόνος τῆς ὑμῶν βασιλείας. 44 As L. Robert has pointed out, they are
particularly often inscribed on buildings, especially at the entrance and on
the lintel, apparently to avert φθόνος from the buildings themselves and from those responsible for them — what he called an épigraphie des linteaux. 45 Such inscriptions are regularly
expressed in acclamatory formulae; 46 a typical example is provided by an
inscription from Isauria, emended by Robert to read: κτίστα, σε φθόνος
οὐ νικήσι . 47 It is very likely that here in 83. xiv there was a preceding line on
the lost upper section of the column, and that this addressed Albinus (as in 83.vi, 83.xiii and 83.xv); if so, the
construction will have been similar to that of the text from Isauria. The τύχη, therefore, which φθόνος cannot overcome, is probably Albinus' own
fortune, perhaps personified in the little figure under the inscription, But
the frequency of such adjurations in building inscriptions suggests that
protection is sought both for the donor and for his works, the buildings
themselves; and acclamations or this kind would be particularly appropriate at
a ceremony of dedication, such as I believe was the occasion for these and
other inscribed acclamations. 48

VI.2283.xvi expresses an ancient commonplace
that the generous man, who does not cling to his money, will obtain glory; the
same idea is almost certainly to be found in 39. The survival of the idea into the Christian period, when in
theory the reward of generosity was to be expected in the next world rather
than this, is attested by an epigram, probably of the fifth or sixth century,
found at Stratonicea; 49 it is on the base of an honorific
statue erected in front of a church to honour Maximus, a local benefactor,
whose honours are said to show that it is good not to be concerned with
possessions, ὡς ἀγαθὸν
τελέθει μὴ κτεάνων ἀλέγειν,
a lack of concern which Maximus had demonstrated by his many gifts (πολλὰ χαριζόμενον) to his city. The thought is precisely the same as that expressed here (for
another similarity, see below, VI.24). The
reference to Albinus' ancestral tradition of patriotism in 83. xvii has been discussed at VI.6.
The second part of the text uses another standard acclamatory formula found
among the acclamations at Chalcedon for the emperors — φιλοχρίστοι, ἄφθονα ὑμῖν — and
also among acclamations for a donor in a group of painted inscriptions from the
Negev Καλῶς ἔκτισεν. Κύριε βοήθησι. ἄφθονα καὶ ἀβάσκαντα
τῷ οἴκῳ σου. 50 There are clearly echoes of the rejection of φθόνος in 83. xiv;
ἄφθονα can have its normal sense of plenty,
wealth, but it is plenty free from the shadow of accompanying envy.

VI.2383. xviii is inscribed on a surface
which has been abraded at the left. If the text occupied roughly the same space
as the others, it will have lost three to six letters at the beginning of each
line. The surviving text appears to mean: Providing [ . . . . ] for (the) city, [ . . . .?in] this, he
is acclaimed. The first lacuna requires a word for what Albinus has given, and
I have tentatively conjectured κτίσμα. The second apparently requires a preposition to
govern the dative, τούτῳ; if ἐν is right, the sense is you are acclaimed in the
building which you have given, which would fit my suggestion that these
acclamations were pronounced in or near the portico at its dedication; or
perhaps we should supply a preposition such as ἐπί, to give the sense for this (action) you are acclaimed.
Alternatively, we should perhaps read οὕτως, thus.

VI.2483.xix returns to the theme of
buildings, κτίσματα; by these Albinus has made the city splendid, ἐφαιδρύνας. The idea is entirely conventional.
By contrast, 83. xx is difficult to
parallel. The opening phrase recalls 83.
xi, and again stresses the unanimity of those acclaiming (see VI.19). This formula is perhaps considered necessary
in introducing a particularly extravagant or debatable statement: in 83.xi, the rejection of Albinus'
enemies, and here, the claim that the man who forgets Albinus does not know
God. The word for forget is the unusual ληθαργεῖν (see VI.8). I have found the
sentiment paralleled in one other acclamation, inscribed at Beirut in honour of
Marthanius (mentioned at VI.8, VI.17). The text
has been published only in capitals, in a footnote, by C. Ghadban: Μαρθανίου στρατηλάτου πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη
ΟΣΙΟΥΛΑΝΘΑΝΝΩΝ ΘΕΟΝΟΥΚΕΧΙcross. 51 In the light of our
inscription, I would interpret the last two lines as ὁ σ<ι>ου λανθάννων θεὸν οὐκ ἔχι, the man who forgets you does not have God. The iota in ΟΣΙΟΥ could easily be an error. The use of λανθάνω in the active to mean forget is irregular, but not unknown; it is so used
in later Greek, and earlier usage implies this meaning. 52 The expression in both cases still
seems extraordinarily extravagant. Another possible echo is in the inscription
from Stratonicea honouring Maximus (cited at VI.22);
his name is inscribed in the left-hand margin of the epigram, and above the
text in the position of a title is inscribed the word θεός (followed by the letters ΗΛΟΥ, but in
what Cousin considered to be an
entirely different hand).

VI.25There
is a small figure, perhaps representing Albinus, cut below this inscription (as
below 83. xiv). It is accompanied by
its own legend, πάπα, possibly to be taken as father. If
so, the reference might well be to Albinus as father of the city (see IV.23). 84
is cut lower down on the same column; it is in a shallower hand, and is perhaps
a later addition. For the acclamation, which is common at all periods, see (PPA 10), and cf. 186. ii.

VI.26 Texts
85, 86 and 87 were assembled
and discussed by L. Robert (Hellenica 4, 127 — 32). Rhodopaeus, the man honoured
in all three, has a name not otherwise attested at Aphrodisias (although for
Rhodopianus, a local Christian martyr, see II.20).
He is given the rank μεγαλοπρεπέστατος/magnificentissimus (87, l.2). The only references
to his offices are in 85, where πάτερ (v. 3)
suggests that he was pater civitatis , and in 86, which indicates that he held a
magistracy for regulating the corn supply (σιταρχίαις l. 3; cf. σιτοδότην, 87, l.10); both of these
are only local, civic offices. Magnificentissimus is used of other patres, but in contexts which cannot be
closely dated. 53 Like many other similar ranks, magnificentissimus, first reliably attested of a consul in 403, declined steadily
in value as it became more and more common during the fifth and sixth
centuries. 54 It was still being used by imperial
officials and men of senatorial status (such as Pytheas, 55) in the later fifth
and early sixth centuries, but increasingly in conjunction with some other,
more specific, rank. Its use here by a man who apparently held only local
offices and no other rank suggests a date well into the sixth century.

VI.27 The
first monument honouring Rhodopaeus was apparently put up while he was pater civitatis (85), and praises
him in general terms. 85 and 86 were both found in the area of the
Hadrianic Baths, and 86 and 87 both refer to his restoration of
baths; the unusual periphrasis, ἀρχηγὸν τῆς φιλοτιμίας of Rhodopaeus' work in 87
probably indicates that he restored the baths in his capacity as pater — that is, he was responsible for the work, but it was partly or wholly
paid for from civic funds (see the discussion of this at IV.23). The description in 87 of the Hadrianic Baths as Olympian, as Robert observed,
reflects their dedication to the Emperor, the Olympian Gods, and Aphrodite. 55Libanius describes baths as constructed appropriately for summer or
winter, open to the breezes or very sheltered. 56 It is evident that some bathing
complexes included both summer and winter sections — so at Gortyn, ὄ ἐστι δύο σχήματα τοῦ δημοσίου θερινοῦ
καὶ χειμερινοῦ, 57 and at Antioch, τῶν δημοσίων βαλανείων ἑκάτερον τὸ πρὸς
τὰς ᾥρας διῃρημένον, 58 perhaps also at Ancyra. 59 It therefore appears that Rhodopaeus,
acting as pater civitatis, supervised the restoration of the
summer part of the Hadrianic baths, presumably a group of cool and airy rooms.

VI.28Rhodopaeus'
restoration of the baths is described as the renewal of forgotten pleasures (87, ll. 11 — 13). Τέρψις is widely used of the pleasures of the
baths; 60 in particular, as Robert pointed out,
the same theme is used in the epigram, recording the restoration of baths at
Miletus by a Hesychius, although Herrmann has dated this to the mid-fifth
century, rather than identifying this man with the sixth century Hesychius
Illustris. 61 The rare verb ληθαργέω, forget, is used to balance ἀληθάργητος (87,
l. 16, and 86, l.1; 62 ); the verb is also used in one of the
inscriptions acclaiming Albinus (83.xx)
from about this period. Another parallel with a contemporary inscription is
perhaps provided by ποθοῦσα (86,
l.6). The same word is used at Ephesus, where a proconsul of Asia, Damocharis,
was honoured by loving (ποθέοντες) provincials; this may well be the Damocharis who contributed to the Cycle of Agathias in the middle decades
of the sixth century. 63

VI.29Rhodopaeus'
other service to the city appears to have been as a magistrate in charge of
food supplies; this is the probable sense of σιταρχίαις (86, l.3), more vaguely
expressed as σιτοδότην (87. l.10). Such an office is not otherwise attested at Aphrodisias;
nor is there any other indication of concern with food supplies since the wars
of the late Republican period. 64 These two references are therefore
very striking; and the coupling of σιτοδότην with κτίστην in the odd phraseology of 87, ll.10-11 is apparently intended to stress the importance of
this work. We know that the duty of assuring food levies could fall to the pater civitatis, καὶ
οἱ πατέρες τῶν πόλεων καὶ πᾶς ἕτερος τῆς συνωνῆς
προνοούμενος, 65 or to a separate magistrate, the σιτώνης. 66 The σιτώνης appears also to have been responsible for
supervising the local food supply, and a novel issued in 545 indicates that the
pater civitatis and the σιτώνης were the two most important local
magistrates. 67 The phrasing of the novel may well
reflect the increased importance and difficulty of maintaining food supplies in
the aftermath of the plague of 541/2. The appearance at Aphrodisias of the
first evidence for 500 years of concern with the food supply is so remarkable,
that it can reasonably be associated with the effects of this plague.

VI.30The
great plague broke out in 541/2, and recurred regularly throughout the second
half of the sixth century. 68The reduction of the workforce
produced a severe shortage of food — λιμός τις ἀκριβής — at Constantinople, 69 and elsewhere, aggravated in
succeeding years by famine from other causes. 70The situation in the provinces is
demonstrated by the account in the life of St Nicholas of Sion, abbot of a
monastery outside Myra in Lycia. When the plague reached Myra, causing many
deaths, the farmers of the surrounding countryside — οἱ παρακειμένοι τῇ ἐνορίᾳ γεωργοί — refused to bring food into the city
for fear of infection. The archbishop
of Myra, the governor and the eminent citizens (πρωτεύοντες) believed
that Nicholas was responsible for the farmers' refusal, but they were able to
do very little about it, beyond sending envoys to rebuke him. There was also a
shortage of food in the countryside, but Nicholas himself had ample supplies (τὴν περισσείαν οἀκ ὀλίγην οὖσαν) and was able to travel to a series of villages, distributing food. 71 The implication seems to be, firstly,
that the city was more seriously affected by the plague than the countryside,
and, secondly, that the city authorities had difficulty in exercising control
over the inhabitants of the countryside, supported by the presence of a
monastery, and — no doubt, although this is not mentioned — by those local
landowners who chose to live chiefly in the country rather than the city. The
contrast is striking with the well-known passage in which Galen describes how,
during famine conditions in the second century, the city-dwellers took the best
of the crops from the peasants. 72 The plague perhaps accentuated the
shift of importance from the cities to rural establishments — villages, private
estates and monasteries — which had been gathering momentum throughout the late
Roman period, and which culminated in the collapse of traditional city life at
the end of the sixth century. 73

VI.31It
appears likely that Rhodopaeus, who had held the office of pater civitatis at
Aphrodisias, subsequently held that of σιτώνης at some time in the mid-sixth century, and that
his function may have been to cope with the effects of the plague and famine
after 541/2. The phrase λοιμὸς
καὶ λιμός (86, l.4) is a widespread
literary cliché, but here it may have a more precise significance. But it is
very hard to know whether we should see this as a contained event or one which
encouraged the decline of civic life at Aphrodisias. There may be conclusions
to draw from the style of the inscriptions. The first text honouring Rhodopaeus
(85) is inscribed with remarkable
care. 86 and 87, set up later, after he had exercised his responsibility for the
food supply, are far less well cut. They are both in prose; 87 is quite carefully phrased, drawing
heavily on 86, but 86 itself makes a very strange
impression because, although in prose, it uses poetic language and phrasing to
the extent that it is partly metrical (esp. lines 6 — 10). The effect is almost
as if the writer had wished to write in verse, but was not fully capable of
doing so. There is certainly ample evidence from Aphrodisias to illustrate how
closely contemporary inscriptions of the late Roman period could be inscribed
in strikingly different styles (see e.g. 55—58). But the contrast between the
careful elegance of 85 and the rough
appearance and odd prose of 86 and 87 perhaps reflects a loss in the
intervening period of people competent to compose texts and inscribe them. If,
however, the circumstances of these inscriptions have been correctly
interpreted, it is perhaps more remarkable than any decline in the standard of
inscriptions that, after pestilence and famine, the Aphrodisians were still
willing and able to honour a prominent citizen with two more marble statues.

VI.32The
chief grounds for dating text 88 are
the close similarities between the script of this text and that of 85, which suggest that they were both
put up about the same time, probably in the first half of the sixth century.
Furthermore, although the language of this text is entirely typical of such
epigrams (e.g. εὐεργεσία, ἀμείβομαι), the phrasing of v. 1, ὧν
δωρήσατο πάτρηι is remarkably
close to that of 85, v. 1, τεῇ δώρησαο πάτρηι. Eugenius
was therefore probably a contemporary of Rhodopaeus (for whose dates see
discussion at VI.26). Eugenius, who was a local
citizen (so πάτρηι), was honoured by the τάξις. Robert, in his original publication,
took this to mean the local ordo, that
is, the members of the city council.
T. Drew-Bear argued that it refers to a governor's staff, officium, which is often expressed in Greek as τάξις. 74 This would suggest that Eugenius was a
governor, who happened to be a local citizen — as in the case of Vitianus, 65. But the discovery of 36, where I believe that φάλαγξ is used of the members of the provincial council
of Caria, suggests to me that τάξις refers to the local
class of councillors, honouring a local citizen; this then explains why his
achievements are not described in greater detail or in the terminology
conventionally used for officials.

VI.33 It
is also not clear that the members of the officium
constituted an official body which might undertake such an action. There are
some dedications for example by beneficiarii acting as a group; 75 at Ephesus various groups on the staff
of the patrimonial procurator act as a group, and even refer to themselves as a
collegium, 76 but it is far more common to find such
honours paid by individual officiales, such as Valerianus, in 40. Moreover, it is extremely risky to
extrapolate from the pretetrarchic administration to that of late antiquity. If
we accept this as a reference to activity by the officium, therefore, we need to reconsider the structure of the officium; it would reflect the serious
importance of the officia of
governors who, themselves, only served for a single year. See further the
discussion at IV.5.

VI.34For
acclamatory inscriptions, similar to 89, for individual citizens see, of course, those
for Albinus (83) and 55, 79. Theopompus is a name not otherwise attested at Aphrodisias. If
the restoration πολιτευόμενος is correct, 77 he was a member of the city council
(see III.32). Σὺν Θεῷ, the restoration that accords best with the surviving traces in 1.
3. is often used to qualify an achievement or a benefaction; 78 it is therefore possible that ΠΑ is the opening syllable of a description of work
undertaken by Theopompus. e.g. πᾶσαν or πάντα. But σὺν Θεῷ is also sometimes used to qualify a title — so, at Ephesus, σὺν θεῷ ἀνθύπατος; 79 this usage may be preferable because
it is found at a neighbouring city, and if so, the only probable title would be
pa[ter civitatis (see IV.23).

VI.35 Whichever
restoration is accepted, Theopompus appears to have held only civic office, and
no other rank; his designation in these circumstances as magnificentissimus indicates a date not before the middle decades
of the sixth century (see discussion at VI.26
for the similar considerations over Rhodopaeus' use of this rank). The script
differs from that of the other inscriptions presented in this chapter; the
tall, slightly curved letters, and the squared tops to alpha and lambda resemble some aspects of later
hands, and I would favour a date fairly late in the sixth century. If this text
and 88 have been correctly
interpreted and dated, the mention there of the curial ordo, and the description here of Theopompus as a member of the
council, suggest that at Aphrodisias the traditional structure of government by
the council continued well into the sixth century, despite evidence for its
collapse in some other places. 80

VI.36 The
restorations of text 90 are far from certain. Θεοφιλέστατος is a standard epithet for bishops in
the sixth and seventh centuries; 81 its restoration seems obligatory here,
although it creates a discrepancy in the apparent lengths of ll.1 and 2.
Orthagoras, a name not otherwise attested at Aphrodisias, also appears
definite. The easiest interpretation of the verb forms in l.6 and probably l.7
is that they are first person active aorists; Orthagoras is describing his own
work, which included clearing out, ἐξεχῶσα, some
area, perhaps beneath something. 82The bishop's epithet suggests a sixth-
or seventh-century date, and the lunate script shows some similarities to that
of 82, 85 and 88.

VI.37 We
are fairly well informed about the ecclesiastical history of Aphrodisias in the
sixth century. A monophysite tradition appears to have become established at
Aphrodisias in the later fifth century, presumably largely as a result of the
work of the brothers Athanasius and Paralius, sons of a prominent local family,
who were converted to monophysite Christianity at Alexandria in the 480s, and
later returned to found a monastery near Aphrodisias, and to conduct missionary
work (see V.4). Monophysitism was widespread in
Caria, apparently based on a strongly monophysite monastic tradition. 83 We know of at least one monophysite
monastery not far from Aphrodisias called Gordiana and described as near
Antioch (on the Maeander), where a companion of John of Ephesus was buried in
the mid-sixth century; 84 it was almost certainly near the
ancient site of Gordiouteichos, once an independent city between Aphrodisias
and Antioch. 85 This may or may not be the same
monastery as that founded by Athanasius and Paralius, or as that in which the
monophysite Bishop Paul lived (see below).

VI.38Although
our sources have preserved far more information about the life of the
monophysite community in the easternmost provinces of the empire, it is clear
that monophysitism was well established in western Asia Minor in the sixth
century. From 542 until his death in 578 the great monophysite missionary,
James Baradaeus, worked in Asia and the surrounding provinces, encouraging and
spreading monophysite belief, and establishing a hierarchy. Also in 542 another
easterner, John of Amida (later appointed monophysite bishop of Ephesus, and
commonly known as John of Ephesus) was appointed by Justinian, despite his
monophysite leanings, to undertake Christian missionary work in the same area.
He later claimed to have baptized 80,000 pagans and to have converted
synagogues into churches in Asia, Caria, Lydia and Phrygia. 86The accounts of his work suggest that
paganism, attested among prominent citizens at Aphrodisias in the late fifth
century (see V.5, V.13)
was also widespread among rural communities. The whole area was therefore
subjected to unprecedented Christian missionary activity, simultaneous with the
active advancement of schism among Christians.

VI.39A
bishop of Aphrodisias, Euphemius, had been among several Carian bishops exiled
under Justin I for their monophysite beliefs (see V.25);
he was presumably replaced by a bishop more sympathetic to Chalcedon. In 553
Severianus, metropolitan bishop of Aphrodisias, attended the fifth ecumenical
council at Constantinople (see List of Bishops). 87 Since that council was intended by the
emperor to produce a compromise on which monophysites and Chalcedonians could
agree, Severianus' loyalties cannot be determined with certainty from the fact
of his presence; but all our evidence suggests that both the established church
and the monophysites were by now attaching great importance to the maintenance
of correct belief in the provinces of western Asia Minor, and it seems probable
that only a reliable Chalcedonian would have been acceptable as metropolitan.
It is perhaps an admission of the firm control exercised by Constantinople over
episcopal appointments that, after 553, James Baradaeus started to consecrate
an alternative, monophysite hierarchy. 88 At some time in or after 558 he appointed Paul, senex sincerus et
simplex, metropolitan bishop of Aphrodisias, apparently as an alternative to a
Chalcedonian metropolitan in residence at Aphrodisias (see List of Bishops). Paul thereby became a
member of the small group of metropolitans and bishops who represented the
monophysite church at this period, and he is attested on several occasions as a
signatory of documents issued in Constantinople. But he also appears to have
spent some time in a monastery outside Aphrodisias, and was living there in 571. In that year, after the final failure
to reach any agreement with the monophysites, the patriarch of Constantinople,
John Scholasticus (of Sermin), started to put direct pressure on the
monophysite hierarchy; he had Paul arrested and brought to Constantinople,
where he succeeded in forcing him to communicate with him and sign a
retraction. He then sent Paul back to the Chalcedonian metropolitan of
Aphrodisias, with instructions that he should be re-ordained — a particular
indignity — and appointed bishop of Antioch on the Maeander. 89 The action of John Scholasticus makes
it clear that the episcopal appointments made by Baradaeus were considered by
the official church to present a significant threat, as well as an important
advance by the monophysites. In 576/7 Paul died; he had continued to be
considered by the monophysites as metropolitan of Caria, and John of Ephesus,
now the active leader of the monophysite church in Asia Minor, appointed
as his successor Deuterius, a man who had been his own assistant in his
missionary work since 542 (see List of Bishops). The Chalcedonian bishops tried to depose him too,
and make him bishop of Antioch, but were unable to do so, presumably because he
avoided capture. Deuterius apparently died before 582, and we have no further
information on the history of the
see in the sixth century. 90

VI.40This
evidence shows an intense ecclesiastical conflict centred on Aphrodisias; John
of Ephesus' selection of his own close associate as monophysite metropolitan of
Caria suggests that he attached great importance to the maintenance of right
belief there. It is, however, quite impossible to assess to what extent, if at
all, these disputes affected the ordinary lay population. We have no detailed
accounts of popular involvement in these ecclesiastical disputes in Asia Minor
to compare with the abundant evidence from the eastern provinces. What we do
know is that in those provinces institutional monophysitism continued to exist,
and to be persecuted; the resultant alienation of the local populations, if it
did not influence the Arab victories of the seventh century, may have
contributed substantially to the consolidation of Arab rule. 91 By contrast, and despite all the
efforts of James Baradaeus and his successors, evidence of organized
monophysite activity in western Asia Minor disappears after the death of John
of Ephesus in 585/6, either because of more effective persecution, or because
monophysite belief had in fact never become really widespread in the region.

VI.41One
effect of the frantic religious activity of the sixth century seems to have
been that missionary pressure, first by Christians on pagans, and then by
Christian groups on one another, was extended throughout western Asia Minor to
reach communities, some of whom may until that date have been living much as
they had always done. The picture which we have drawn so far of Aphrodisias is
of a highly traditional society, continuing well into the sixth century the
conventions of city life established in Roman and pre-Roman times. The
intensification, however, in the sixth century of Christian missionary work
conducted by two competing groups, may have helped to destroy the social
consensus in which these traditions had been grounded and ultimately have
contributed to the disappearance of traditional city life at Aphrodisias. 92

VI.42 Text
91 only survives in a copy made by
William Sherard in 1716. The obscurities in Sherard's copy suggest that the
text, apparently on a re-used stone, was in a difficult hand. It comprises a
witness list to a process confirmed by an imperial judge, probably concerned
with a will; as Kirchhoff suggested, the fact that the last witness, George,
describes himself simply as the brother of Abelcius, suggests that Abelcius
may have been the testator. Since an imperial judge was involved, and the list
was inscribed, the matter was presumably of some importance, perhaps concerning
a substantial legacy; the presence of three church officials among the
witnesses may suggest that this was a legacy to the church.

VI.43 It
was Grégoire who pointed out that the ΒΙΟΥ of l. 8 should be corrected to ΘΙΟΥ and that Theophylact was one of the board of twelve θεῖοι δικασταί, the imperial judges or
pedanei iudices, established by
Justinian in 539 (Just. Nov. 82). The
board was deliberately composed partly of ex-officials of high rank, usually,
like Theophylact, ἐνδοξότατος/gloriosissimus , 93 and partly of distinguished lawyers,
with the stated intention of providing judges with a real knowledge of the law. 94 Theophylact must have been appointed
after 539, since we know the names of all the judges appointed in that first year.
The novel described the judges as sitting daily in Constantinople; but an
inscription referring to one has been found at Megara (IG vii, 175, Παύλου
. . . σχολαστικοῦ καὶ θείου δικαστοῦ) and another at Sardis (IGC 324,
Ὑπερεχίου τοῦ ἐνδοξοτάτου
ῥεφερενδαρίου καὶ θίου δικαστοῦ . It appears, then, that the work of
these judges was in due course extended to the provinces. We know that the
reorganization of the administration in western Asia Minor, which brought Caria
under the jurisdiction of the quaestor
exercitus, had created difficulties for citizens in Caria wishing to take
cases to appeal, so that a visit from an imperial judge would have been
extremely welcome. 95 The need for easy access to an
imperial judge will probably have increased as the provincial governor became
identified during the sixth century more and more with the local governing
class until in 569 the nomination of governors was entrusted to prominent local
citizens. 96

VI.44 All
these considerations suggest a date well into the sixth century; but a far more
precise dating was suggested by Grégoire, who proposed that Theophylact, gloriosissimus ex-eparch and imperial
judge, should be identified with the historian Theophylact Simocatta, described
in the introduction to his Histories as
ἀπὸ ἐπάρχων καὶ
ἀντιγραφεύς. Grégoire equated antigrapheus with
referendarius, and suggested that
Theophylact might have had a career similar to Hyperechius, described in the
inscription at Sardis (cited above) as referendarius and imperial judge. In fact Bury
had already demonstrated that the antigrapheus was not the same as the referendarius, but an official in the office of the quaestor, concerned with
judicial matters, including the regulation of wills. 97 The essence of Grégoire's argument
therefore still holds good, since an antigrapheus would be quite as well suited as a referendarius to be an imperial judge. Grégoire further stated that Simocatta was the only
prominent Theophylact known to him in the sixth or seventh centuries. Michael
Whitby (for whose help on these issues I am most grateful) points out that the
seals of several important officials with this name can be dated to this
period. Grégoire's identification is thus less conclusive, although still
plausible. If the imperial judge and ex-eparch at Aphrodisias were also the
historian, antigrapheus and
ex-eparch, he should probably be identified with the Theophylact, ex-eparch,
whose seal is dated to 550-650. 98 If correct, this identification offers
a fairly close date for this inscription, which is dated to September in the
fifteenth indiction. The possible years during Simocatta's active career are
611, 626 and 641. Of these 611 is too early for him to have held such high
office; and Whitby points out that an imperial judge is unlikely to have been
sent to the provinces in September 626, when the Avars had only just been
repulsed, and the Persians were still in Asia Minor. The most probable date,
therefore, seems to be 641, when Simocatta would have been in his 50s; this
would then be the latest secular public inscription found at Aphrodisias.

VI.45 A
date in the mid-seventh century might explain why Sherard had such difficulty
in deciphering the inscription, after making excellent copies of fifth- and
sixth-century material. The problems in the witness list cannot be resolved
with any certainty; but since the earlier part of the list seems to consist of
names and patronymics, the lack of a patronymic after Procopius (l.15) could be
explained if he and Theodore, the ἀναγνόστης (for this church office see VIII.8), were brothers.

VI.47The
other group of texts which should perhaps be dated to the late sixth century
are the group of acclamations from the Hadrianic Baths, 61. Those texts acclaim
an emperor and an empress, and The New Theodosius. In my previous publication I suggested that these referred to
Anastasius, praised for his similarity to Theodosius II — see the discussion at
discussed at V.26. But Gilbert Dagron has made a cogent case for seeing this as a
reference to the new son of the emperor Maurice, Theodosius, born in 583: for a
discussion of this interpretation see V.30. If
this is right, it adds to the body of evidence for active civic life at
Aphrodisias throughout the sixth century. The expression of such activity in
acclamations is typical of the period: acclamations for both Phocas and
Heraclius, with his family, are found at Ephesus, 99 and at Gortyn in Crete.

VI.48 The
only other epigraphic activity at Aphrodisias which can be securely dated to
the seventh century is an alteration to 42,
the second of the two texts cut on the lintel of the North East gate in the
city wall. The text originally read Ἐπὶ εὐτυχίᾳ τῆς λαμπρᾶς
Ἀφροδισιαίων μητροπόλεως; at a later date, the letters ΑΦ and ΔΙΣΙΑ in Ἀφροδισιαίων were erased; the Ι of ΑΙΩΝ was changed to Τ,
and new letters added in the erasures, to read ΤΑΥΡΟΠΟΛΙΤΩΝ. Earlier editors were in doubt as to how to
interpret the resultant reading, ΛΑΜΠΡΑΣ ΤΑΥΡΟΠΟΛΙΤΩΝ.
Francke interpreted ΛΑΜΠΡΑ as an abbreviation, and
read λαμπροτάτης
Σταυροπολιτῶν; but Boeckh, Bailie and Waddington all
preferred λαμπρᾶς
Ταυροπολιτῶν, and were followed by Grégoire. A city
called Tauropolis is attested in Caria, in a passage from Apollonius of
Aphrodisias cited by Stephanus Byzantinus (s.v. Χρυσαορίς and cf. Ταυρόπολις), and in the De Thematibus of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (1. 14); it was
suggested that this was an early name for Aphrodisias, resurrected in the
seventh century to replace the more pagan-sounding name. But, while Stephanus
lists several earlier names for Aphrodisias, Tauropolis is not one of them
(s.v. Νινόη): nor is an antiquarian revival of this kind attested among the name changes
of this period (see below). Moreover, as Reinach pointed out, the only evidence
for the position of Tauropolis, which can be deduced from its position in the
description of the frontier of the Cibyrrhaeot theme by Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, suggests that it was on the Lycian-Carian border, not far
from Oenoanda. 100 Reinach was no doubt correct in
concluding that the stone-cutter, already pressed for space in inserting the
new name, read the Σ of λαμπρᾶς as the initial
letter of the following word, so that we must read (with Reinach, Robert and
Cormack) τῆς λαμπρᾶς Σταυροπολιτῶν μητροπόλεως.

VI.49The
change of name of the metropolis of Caria from the pagan Aphrodisias to the
Christian Stauropolis, city of the Cross, is attested in ecclesiastical
documents, and can be dated roughly to the middle decades of the seventh
century. In the Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553, the see is still
referred to as Aphrodisias, 101 as it is in the History of John of
Ephesus written in the 580s. 102Sophronius of Jerusalem, in his
account of the miracles of John and Cyrus written between 610 and 619, also
used the name Aphrodisias. 103 The first dated mention of the name Stauropolis is in the Acts of the
Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680, which was attended by the bishop of Stauropolis: τῆς Σταυροπολιτῶν μητροπόλεως τῆς
Καρῶν ἐπαρχίας; 104 the name also appears in the
seventh-century bishops' list of Ps. Epiphanius. 105 Thereafter the name Aphrodisias never
appears.

VI.50The
new name in 42 was probably inserted
at the time of the name-change; this may also have been when the names
Aphrodite and Aphrodisian were erased on several public monuments, notably
in the texts on the Archive Wall in the Theatre. 106 Those erasures were carried out more
thoroughly in the lower registers of the text than in those above, and a
similarly haphazard approach can be found in other erasures in the Theatre. 107 Since the Theatre was the focus of
considerable attention at this time, these erasures too may also be associated
with the seventh-century change of name; but other erasures of pagan
terminology on the site, such as that in 11
and those in PPA
72 as well as the elimination of various pagan images could well date from an
earlier period of tension between pagans and Christians at Aphrodisias.

VI.51The
replacement of pagan theophoric names with Christian ones took place over a
considerable period. 108 The Synecdemus of Hierocles, recording the situation in the mid-fifth
century (see IV.17), lists three former
Apollonias, two (in Palestine and Libya) as Sozousa, and one (Pisidia) as
Sozopolis. Apollonia in Thrace is also recorded as a Sozopolis in the Notitiae ; 109 yet other Apollonias appear unchanged
in the Notitiae. Only one case can be
precisely dated: the name of Antioch was changed to Theoupolis after the
earthquake of 528. There may have been another cluster of name-changes in the
seventh century. Prusa appears as Theoupolis or Prusa in the Acts of the
Council of 680, as Theotokiana in 692, but as Prusa in 787. 110 Aphrodisias and Dios Hieron seem to
have changed their names at about the same time.

VI.52Given
the length of time involved, it is not clear that all these changes had
precisely similar motives. The adoption by four Apollonias of very similar
names, three at least before the mid-fifth century, suggests that the cities
were influenced by each others' examples, and perhaps that their concern was
more to make evident their Christianity and their rejection of paganism, than
necessarily to obtain divine protection. On the other hand, in the only
documented case, that of Antioch, the adoption of a Christian name, in place of
one with no particular religious significance, was apparently to obtain
protection. Malalas says that the name was changed on the advice of a holy man
(443). Theophanes mentions the name-change, and also recounts how, when the
citizens inscribed Χριστὸς
μεθ' ἡμῶν στῆτε on their lintels (ὑπέρθυρα) on the advice of a pious
man, the earthquake stopped. 111 Nicephorus Callistus links the two
stories, and implies that the new name was chosen because the pious
inscriptions had had this effect. 112 Since the two traditions are
interrelated, it is particularly interesting to find the new name of
Stauropolis carefully inserted in an inscription over one of the gates to the
city. Probably at the same time, a large cross in a circle, flanked by an alpha and an omega was cut over the upper inscription (22) on the same gate; although the relevant part of the inscription on the West gate (19) is lost, it is likely that that too
was altered, and there are Christian inscriptions, perhaps with a prophylactic
significance, in the side entrance to the East Gate (139).

VI.53All
this suggests that the change of name at Aphrodisias was not just the rejection
of a pagan past, but a deliberate attempt to gain divine protection; the
alteration of inscriptions, which by this date were no longer part of the
city's normal life, indicates that they may have begun to be seen as vaguely
talismanic, like the inscriptions of Constantinople in the eighth century. 113 In or after the
seventh century an inner fortification wall was built round the Theatre and the
Acropolis, using materials from the decoration of the Tetrastoon, and the
monumental processional way to the Sebasteion, built in the first century AD. 114 It may be assumed that those
structures were no longer considered necessary, and it is very likely that they
were in a damaged state, perhaps as the result of earthquakes. It is
significant that the new name was placed on the old outer ring of walls;
similarly, perhaps, the newly fortified Acropolis may have been assured of divine
favour when pagan names — particularly that of Aphrodite — were erased from
some of the inscriptions in the Theatre. This perhaps suggests that the retreat
at Aphrodisias from the extended city to the fortified kastron was a slow one, and that the Acropolis was fortified at a
time when the inhabitants still considered that their city was defined, and to
some extent protected, by the fourth-century city walls.

VI.54Aphrodisias'
change of name, however, was not necessarily in response to an earthquake,
as in the case of Antioch, since the seventh century provided abundant reasons for seeking a reinforcement
of divine protection. As has been said, Prusa seems briefly to have adopted a
Christian name. A closer parallel is Dios Hieron, whose blatantly pagan name
was changed to Christoupolis in the seventh century, although not to the
exclusion of the earlier name: the two appear together in the conciliar acts of
680 and 692, 115 and the earlier name survives in the Notitiae. By 879, however, a third name,
Pyrgion, has emerged, and it is this which has survived as the modern name of
the site. 116 Similarly, the name Stauropolis seems rapidly to have been replaced, as
has been pointed out by John Nesbitt. 117 The see, described as Stauropolis in
692, 118 is described as Caria in 787, 119 and as Stauropolis or Caria in the Notitiae; Nesbitt has shown that Caria
was established as the name of the see by the eighth century, perhaps even
before 730, although Stauropolis was not eliminated. Perhaps Caria was simply
more familiar and less clumsy than the new name, just as Pyrgion may have
seemed easier than Christoupolis; as Pyrgion survived as the modern Birge, so
Caria became Geyre, the name of the Turkish village on the site of Aphrodisias.

VI.55By
the seventh century inscriptions at Aphrodisias — as elsewhere — are few, and
can no longer serve as a useful guide to the development of the city. The
archaeological and numismatic evidence makes it clear that the city, like so
many others in Asia Minor, went into a decline in the early seventh century;
but there is no evidence of an external attack, as at Sardis. 120 As was pointed out above, the city
walls appear to have continued to delimit the city, perhaps simultaneously with
the fortification of the Acropolis. Some reasons for the city's decline have
been suggested — the effects of the plague, and a shift in importance from the
inland to the maritime cities — but it was entirely typical of a development
which seems to have been taking place throughout the empire. It is perhaps more
remarkable that the city had continued so apparently prosperous, and so
constant to its civic traditions for so long. The shift in importance to the
coastal cities will have been reinforced when the area became part of the
organization of the maritime Carabisian theme in the seventh century, and, in
the eighth, part of the Cibyrrhaeot theme, a maritime subdivision of the
earlier grouping. When Constantine Porphyrogenitus, writing in about 933,
listed the important cities of the Cibyrrhaeot theme, only one, Mylasa, was an
inland site. 121 It was largely the most ancient cities
that were again the most important. Aphrodisias, indefensibly situated in a
rich but remote plain, appears to have become important only when the Romans
reached Asia Minor, and established peace and good communications. As the traditional institutions of the Roman
empire declined and disappeared in the seventh century, so did
Aphrodisias. The Byzantine community of
Stauropolis, of which we know little, continued to occupy the site and maintain
buildings. In the tenth and eleventh
centuries, here as elsewhere, there was a recovery of prosperity which was
manifested in restoration and building work on the churches, with some
associated inscriptions (99, 108); this was curtailed by the arrival
of the Turks in Asia Minor, and at some time in the thirteenth century Caria
was finally lost to Byzantine rule. What we know of the history of this site in the later period is set out
below, VII.9, and VII.27,
discussing 110, the latest public
inscription found at the site. That is
a church inscription; after the early seventh century the city apparently
produced no more secular public inscriptions.

Zacos and Veglery, no. 559.
See PLRE III, Theophylact 2 for the inscription, Theophylact 10 for Simocatta, Theophylact 6 for the seal. For the most recent discussion
see Michael Whitby, 'Theophylact the Historian and the Miracles of Artemius', in E. Dabrowa ed., Donum Amicitiae: Studies in Ancient History (Krakow, 1997), 221-234.